7/30/2019 Doc.39.pdf

1/2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 08-20612-CR-SEITZ/OSULLIVAN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

HASSAN SAIED KESHARI

_________________________________/

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on defendant Hassan Saied Kesharis Motion

to Reopen Pre-Trial Detention Hearing Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3142(f) (DE# 27,

7/14/08) and Corrected Motion to Reopen Pre-Trial Detention Hearing Pursuant to 18

U.S.C. 3142(f) (DE# 35, 7/17/08). Having reviewed the applicable filings and the law,

it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that defendant Hassan Saied Kesharis Motion to

Reopen Pre-Trial Detention Hearing Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3142(f) (DE# 27, 7/14/08)

is DENIED as moot. It is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the defendants Corrected Motion to Reopen

Pre-Trial Detention Hearing Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3142(f) (DE# 35, 7/17/08) is

DENIED.

The defendant argues that the pretrial detention hearing should be reopened

because [t]he indictment, as well as . . . counsels investigation, has brought to light

additional information . . . that severely undermines the governments reasons for

claiming that [the defendant] poses such a serious flight risk that no bond will suffice to

reasonably assure his appearance. See Hassan Saied Kesharis Motion to Reopen

Case 1:08-cr-20612-PAS Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2008 Page 1 of 2

7/30/2019 Doc.39.pdf

2/2

2

Pre-Trial Detention Hearing Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3142(f) (DE# 27 at 2, 7/14/08).

Under the Bail Reform Act, a pretrial detention hearing may be reopened:

if the judicial officer finds that information exists that was not known to themovant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on theissue whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assurethe appearance of such person as required and the safety of any otherperson and the community.

18 U.S.C. 3142(f). The defendant has not shown that he is entitled to reopen the

pretrial detention hearing. The additional information proffered by the defendant does

not have a material bearing on whether the defendant should be detained prior to trial.

Much of the information contained in the instant motion was known to the defendant at

the time of the pretrial detention hearing before the undersigned. Additionally, the Court

does not find merit in the defendants claim that the government exaggerated or

misrepresented the nature of the case.

DONE AND ORDERED, in Chambers, at Miami, Florida, this 22nd day of July,

2008.

_______________________________JOHN J. OSULLIVANUNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies mailed by Chambers to:

U.S. District Judge SeitzAll counsel of record

Case 1:08-cr-20612-PAS Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2008 Page 2 of 2